Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

California

Auggie

(32,439 posts)

5. I've read/heard the same thing. Nuclear has to be part of the energy mix.

Reply to quaint (Reply #2)

Sun Aug 25, 2024, 12:45 PM

Aug 2024

Just build them away from fault lines.

Another item I've read/heard is that we're basing safety assumptions for all plants on engineering and operations that's decades old. Tech is a lot better now.

I'm not a proponent of nuclear power, but I'm a realist. Less is better. And not on earthquake faults.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

quaint

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Earthquake risks and rising costs: The price of operating California's last nuclear plant [View all] quaint Aug 2024 OP

Non Scientist answer- smaller reactors would also be at risk -earthquakes are so prevalent maybe it's the area. flying_wahini Aug 2024 #1

"I've read" here and there, that nuclear is the best option for large-scale replacement of fossil fuels, quickly. quaint Aug 2024 #2

I've read/heard the same thing. Nuclear has to be part of the energy mix. Auggie Aug 2024 #5

We need both: Nuclear and Storage. CoopersDad Aug 2024 #3

Our experience extending the life of and decommissioning SONGS has brought Diablo extension forefront. quaint Aug 2024 #4

SONGS, 1968, is quite a bit older than DCPP, 1985 CoopersDad Aug 2024 #6

Thanks much. quaint Aug 2024 #7

The world is burning. How long are we going to pretend natural gas is harmless... hunter Aug 2024 #8